Labour Party ‘ran publicity stunts’ and mishandled key policy decisions while in Government, secret report finds

The Labour Party failed to maintain public trust, mishandled key policy decisions, ran badly judged publicity stunts and agreed to legislation which was damaging to democracy, a damning confidential internal report has found.

The three-part report, which was undertaken by the party’s executive between the leadership of Brendan Howlin and Alan Kelly, has caused significant internal tensions this week as some believe it could open itself up to public attack if the findings become known.

Others in Labour are privately calling for the full report to be published.

Among the key findings of the report into the party’s time in Government between 2011 and 2016 are: that the Labour should have done more to help the most vulnerable, that there was a “major misstep” made around single parent policies, that the party would have been almost as unpopular if it had governed on its own, that Labour was part of a Government that badly handled a medical card entitlement review, and that the party listened too much to “experts.”

They say ‘Dublin 1 is for the far-right’ and threaten to kill a politician, yet Ireland ignores the threat

---

Unregulated student digs: A home away from home or an isolating experience?

---

Rise in school absenteeism: ‘Some stay up too late on their phones until 3 or 4am’

---

Sarah Moss: As a bike-riding vegetarian feminist I can see why people might disagree with everything I think

---

It finds that although there were “real achievements” on economic policy, “Labour failed” at the important metric of “maintaining public trust.”

The report, seen by The Irish Times, says that Labour also made some “unforced errors” in its policies.

[ Analysis: Is the Labour Party ready to face up to the past? ]

[ Irish Times Poll: Fine Gael and Sinn Féin see support drop, gains for Fianna Fáil and Social Democrats ]

“The changes affecting single parents, although well intended, was a major misstep. The medical card review was badly handled. Equally, although water charges were a specific requirement of the agreement entered into with the troika by the previous Fianna Fáil Green Party Government, it remains a question whether Labour should not have insisted on abandoning them at that time, once Ireland regained its capacity to fund itself from 2014, given the significant level of public protest against the charges, which were largely targeted as a tangible manifestation of austerity.”

It also finds that in hindsight, more should have been done to target supports towards those most vulnerable to consistent poverty and deprivation.

The report delves, in significant detail, into other policy positions that proved to be decisive for the fate of the Labour Party during the 2011 election campaign. It references an infamous Tesco-style ad with the tag line ‘every little hurts’ where Labour warned of the dire consequences of a single-party Fine Gael Government.

“Labour ran an imitation ‘Tesco’ advertisement as a badly-judged publicity stunt, highlighting six austerity measures that were in Fine Gael’s manifesto. This advertisement contradicted Labour’s own manifesto, which anticipated increasing excise on wine and increasing VAT by 1 per cent. Whatever their rationale, both of these non-manifesto initiatives were significant in how Labour’s performance in Government was subsequently judged,” the report says.

It also examined the 2014 review of medical card eligibility, which caused huge controversy at the time.

“In the spring of 2014, the HSE conducted a major review of medical card entitlement, which was badly handled by the Government as tens of thousands of people feared the loss of access to healthcare as a result.

“While the HSE had developed a new system to track eligibility and there was evidence that this achieved important budgetary savings, it should have been possible to conduct the review without causing worry and distress to tens of thousands of people.”

Another major issue examined by the review was the abolition of town councils.

It says that “contrary to assertions at the time and despite warnings from Labour councillors, it strengthened the hand of council executives and weakened urban governance. It also abolished the much-needed Dublin Regional Authority.

“In hindsight, Labour should not have acquiesced to this legislation, which was damaging to Irish democracy.”

While the report also argues that Labour “blocked the more extreme Fine Gael proposals for deeper cuts to public spending and social welfare, as well as privatisation”, it is also acknowledges that a Labour Government on its own may not have fared much better.

“Under a hypothetical Labour-led Government, there would have been greater emphasis on bringing Ireland’s tax system closer to European norms. While this could have reduced cuts to welfare, public sector jobs and wages, and public services, it would not have prevented “austerity”. While a greater share of the cost would have been placed on the middle and upper classes, no realistic tax strategy could have been implemented without reducing most working households’ disposable incomes. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that this would have been equally unpopular as the policies that were implemented.”

Addressing the economic situation, it finds that Labour “never developed” a narrative to convey “the enormous consequences that would have ensued for working people, those who depend most on public services and society generally, if Ireland had failed to regain economic independence by the end of the troika memorandum period.”

In a separate section of the three-part report, a series of recommendations are made.

One part calls on Labour to agree on a “narrative on our role during the period.”

“The best course is to simply describe what actually happened: that in the 2011 general election we sought a mandate for a better, fairer way. We didn’t get it. Less than one in five voted for us. Given the election we ended up limited leverage to try to moderate the agenda of Fine Gael and the Troika.”

“Nevertheless the bottom line is that we managed to ensure Ireland exited the bailout, regained our economic sovereignty and provided the people with a viable alternative to the austerity which they had been condemned to when Fianna Fáil and the Greens supported by Fine Gael and Sinn Féin introduced the disastrous bank guarantee in 2008.”

It adds: “we preserved most of the social and economic infrastructure in the process.”

The party wants to “ingrain” a “clear narrative summarising our role during the period among all spokespersons, representatives and communications personnel”.

Other recommendations centre around the culture of the party.

“We must listen to our own people, especially when we are in Government. It sometimes seems we prefer to listen to ‘experts’. Unfortunately, they can turn out to reflect the outlook, values and thought processes of those who are at odds with the interests of the people who should constitute our core constituency. We recommend that we assimilate this into our consciousness and work to correct it.”

It also finds that political development and education had been “neglected” for a long time preceding 2011.

In relation to marketing, the recommendations from the review say that the party should be “persuading people of the superiority of our perspective, recruiting them into membership”.

It warns there is a “danger of drifting towards a kind of shallow ‘retail politics’ where attainment of ‘seats’ becomes an end in itself often neglecting the egalitarian vision which is the raison d’être for our existence.”

In terms of the recruitment of staff and personnel, the recommendation states that the selection and appointment of personnel for paid and even voluntary roles, “especially those in positions which influence the direction of policy and strategy is key to the core character of any political party, but especially on the left. It is therefore critical to ensure that all such appointments are conditional on a record of participation and engagement in activities and movements, which at least share our egalitarian values and outlook.”